Thursday, December 28, 2006

It is my belief that the individual has the right to live their life untroubled and untrammelled. Everyone should be free to choose to "go to the devil their own way".

Nevertheless, there are many snares in untrammelled freedom- selfishness cuts us off from others, greed ultimately poisons our bodies, or our happiness. Materialism leads us to neglect ourselves in favour of possessions.

So, although I will make no judgments of others, it is clear that there are certain disciplines that we can impose upon ourselves that will help us live more fulfilled and happier lives. It is these disciplines that form the basis of morality and ethics.

From the 1930s, the Oxford Group began to talk about a "moral re-armament" in the face of the challenges of both Hitler and Stalin, and while occasionally the ideals of what became Moral Re-armament (M.R.A.) may have strayed either into naivete or directly political action, the core values have stood some surprising tests. The twelve-step programme of Alcoholics Anonymous has its roots amidst the Oxford Group, for example.

When I was a child, my father was interested in the values of Moral Re-armament, and had an audio tape of M.R.A.s Gilbert and Sullivan style satire on the Cold War: The Vanishing Island, which we used to listen to on long car journeys. At the time, the key to the satire appeared to be be the Cold War itself- the regimented forces of Weiheit'tiu (We Hate You) challenging the power of the island of Eiluph'mei (I Love Me). Now, and with a more adult eye, I see that the satire was as much about the license that freedom gives to selfishness and greed. Although dated, I still find myself picking up on the cynicism of the Press that is portrayed in the song "Inky Scribes" or the self satisfaction in the words of "We are right, you are wrong"- a song that sums up the arrogance of George W. Bush to perfection.

The core message of the Oxford Group is the need to take personal responsibility for one's own actions and behaviour. Although originally a Christian Group, Moral Re-armament, now known as Initiatives of Change, has embraced members of all religions, and those whose tenets prefer to embrace a voice of conscience instead. Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of the Group itself, the message of the Oxford Group seems to be gaining a greater resonance in our own time.

In the West, we live in a time of unparalleled abundance- yet our actions are polluting the world. We give ourselves more and more license, yet in order to posses things once thought of as luxuries we now commit to greater financial burdens. The conformity of groups has eroded our rights to be respected as individuals.

Our society has become one where those who take responsibility end up becoming blamed, while those who shirk responsibility are ignored. Our political system has become a paralyzed bureaucracy, dependent on 18th or 19th Century technology and ideas. Our universal principles reduced to the flummery that disguises an all powerful executive, which seems determined to reduce the power of individuals as far as possible. Without personal responsibility, the human spirit is reduced to irresponsibility- and society begins to lose cohesion.

Meanwhile, the power of organised religion- a previous source of morality- has declined into the ritualistic. The moral force that religion once had has been blunted by the increasingly undeniable truths of science. Western society no longer accepts the unvarnished tenets of faith. In a sense this is a maturing- we can now see our place in the Universe more clearly. Yet this change in perception has removed the parental figure of the God of Religion. We still know very little of our place in the Universe, and dimly we perceive the value of the moral and ethical lessons of the past. Slacking our physical appetities does not necessarily filfil us, shirking responsibility reduces our sense of autonomy. Yet no single spiritual manifesto seems to address modern concerns.

Vaclav Havel spoke out against Communism in "The Power of the Powerless"- and he also put forward a moral manifesto for a citizen against the state: "The salvation of this human world lies nowhere else than in the human heart, in the human power to reflect, in human meekness and human responsibility", perhaps this can be the basis for a new political perception.

Today we face the challenge of fanaticism- this time "We Hate You" comes in the monstrous actions of Al-Qaida. Their barbarity may tempt us to act intemperately, but as Iraq must surely demonstrate-we must not give into the temptations of revenge rather than reason.

More and more the greatest challenge we face is in ourselves- the challenge of overcoming our own actions. Our failure to nurture moral disciplines in ourselves has allowed our Greed to turn the gardens of China into polluted deserts and the seas of the world into fished-out dustbins. Our failure to nurture our offspring leads to ill educated, feral children whose lack of personal autonomy makes them live their lives in a consequence-free moral vacuum. Ultimately our greed and our selfishness destroys us as well as everything else they damage.

I do not put forward the manifesto of a philosopher-king, Freedom allows all to make moral choices within the law. However, genuine freedom gives, indeed insists upon, personal autonomy and responsibility.

As a Liberal I demand the freedom to take responsibilty for my own life. It is not merely a civic duty but a moral obligation. Though many will regard this as pointless dreaming, yet will I leave with one further thought from Havel:

"Even a purely moral act that has no hope of any immediate and visible political effect can gradually and indirectly, over time, gain in political significance."

As I see the banalities of our political cycle seem poised to move to their own imperatives, yet will I continue to campaign for Freedom. I will also seek a path of moral responsibility based upon personal autonomy. Honesty, purity unselfishness and love do not seem like bad influences upon the course of life. The next years will need a far greater political and moral vision- and we can not rely on our leaders to provide it. It is up to ourselves to make moral choices and to speak out for the principles and values of freedom in the face of indifference, ignorance or hostility.

Just over a year ago a gigantic earthquake hit the fault between the Indian and Burma tectonic plates. At 9.3 on the Richter scale it was the second largest earthquake ever recorded on a seismograph. A few minutes after the quake had stilled, the first tsunami came ashore on Sumatra, before spreading out across the Indian Ocean. Along a huge section of coast the surge of water flooded ashore- often for many miles. The US Geological Survey initially recorded the casualty toll as 283,100 killed, 14,100 missing, and 1,126,900 people displaced- one of the most destructive natural disasters ever recorded.

The Boxing Day Earthquake reminds us that the unexpected can come from many different quarters. Humans seem remarkably good at ignoring long term danger- until, that is disaster strikes.

There are several events that may at the time be considered "black swan events"- that is that they are inherently unpredictable- arguably 9/11 was one such event. However this is not so with many natural disasters. The problem is not forecasting what will occur, this is usually very clear, but when. For example Mount Vesuvius near Naples has been a regularly erupting Vulcano for all of human history- averaging an eruption about six times a century. However since 1944, the Mountain has been quiet. That the vulcano will erupt again is a certainty- when is highly unpredictable.

Similar statistics show up in the Kanto fault under Tokyo- regular large Earthquakes about every sixty years: the last one being the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake - Yes, one seems overdue at the moment. Other major cities, like San Francisco and Istanbul are also prone to large scale, destructive earthquakes, but on a regular scale that is longer than a single human life- so people forget about the risks. Floods and Storms are also certainties on a macro scale- but so unpredictable on a micro scale that preparation is almost always suspect: as New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina proved so brutally.

However, it is easy to add another unserious prediction to our survey: large scale natural disasters will occur in 2007, and humans will probably be unprepared for them.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

The days are drawing out- albeit that it will be weeks before we notice the longer daylight.

It is impossible to know what 2007 holds. We can talk about trends, but this forgets the "black swan" events that are by their nature unpredictable. The Grim Reaper can confuse many calculations- as he seems to have done in Turkmenistan with the death of the brutal dictator Niyazov, leaving no obvious successor. New ideas can gain purchase rapidly and then turn into the Conventional Wisdom. So I make no serious predictions about the passage of events.

So I will devote this fallow period before real work restarts to some unserious thoughts about the kind of events that may shape the coming year.

"Unseriously", we could think of many things that might happen in 2007- Iran may go nuclear, or may go moderate. North Korea may collapse or linger on. China may reform or crack down. Each seems about equally likely at the moment.

Yet many things will inevitably change- Tony Blair is committed to leaving office, for example. It remains to be seen if his heir presumptive, Gordon Brown, can maintain the success of the power machine that the Labour Party has become. Yet whoever becomes the Prime Minister will face new and different challenges, not least from the changing European environment.

The European Union continues to struggle to establish the ground rules for a Union of 27. Now it does seem that an attempt will be made to resurrect the constitution in 2007. The defeat of (and in) France may prove to have been a transitory one, and in fact it is Britain- rejected by the United States and increasingly riven by separatist factions- that may face the greatest problems in the coming year. After all, it seems very likely in 2007 that France will have a replacement for her discredited leader, Jacques Chirac. In the likely honeymoon period that the new President may have, much may be achieved- at home as well as abroad. Quietly the ratification process of the constitution has continued- and 17 countries have ratified the treaty.

The problem is not what the Constitutional treaty is, the problem is what it represents. In fact, it is a series of compromises set out with the aim of reducing the cumbersome fabric of the European Union. Yet the political nature of the document has made it a domestic football in France and the Netherlands, and a total deal breaker in the United Kingdom. In short, the stance of the British Press and the Conservative Party would make it extremely difficult for the UK to ratify the treaty at all under most likely scenarios.

So, a first unserious prediction: Europe will return to the forefront of the political battleground in 2007

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Labour gets ever more mired in the cash for peerages mess. The Tories find themselves funded by obscure trusts in Liechtenstein. Questions continue about the Michael Brown affair amongst the Lib Dems.

Some commentators now believe that political parties should be funded directly by the state. After all, goes the argument, it is necessary for the workings of the political system to have vigorous, well funded parties and it is better to have these openly funded rather than by foreign or other questionable sources.

Bluntly, this is self serving bulls**t.

If the political parties can not manage to fund themselves in a legal or orderly way, then I have no quarrel with the idea that they should go under.

Why should what is, in effect, a private club that seeks to fund a massive advertising campaign every few years get its money from the state, that is to say, from everyone else?

If Labour or Tories can not run themselves without recourse to unsustainable levels of debt, then tough- they will have to scale back what they do. As it is, Labour and the Tories rely on the support of Trade Unions and shareholders of major corporations who may not actually support the ideals of either of the two parties.

As for the Liberal Democrats. I believe we should return the money to the defrauded shareholders in Michael Brown's companies- it will be tough, but at the end of the day it will demonstrate that we are serious about being funded only by our members and supporters.

The party funding scandal will just get murkier- the strange and private groups of business people who are scouting for money for the Conservatives are likely to get Mr. Cameron into just as much trouble as "Lord" Levy and Mr. Blair.

Meanwhile, state funding profoundly disadvantages any new parties- and frankly I think that the current set up could do with more competition. With the current absurd electoral system in place, state funding will make the political system even less responsive- more professionalised, less rooted in the wider community- than it is already.

I do not see why I should pay a penny to the Conservatives or Labour, so the idea of funding tens of millions in advertising for them is totally repellent.

It is up to the electorate to punish political parties that are prepared to bend and break the law, and state funding just rewards politicians who can't stay honest...

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

An occasional poster to this blog, "Lepidus" made the following comment:

"many Lib Dems will likely be elected on the back of "Tory Votes" as was John Leech, so you are wise to seek out Labour held seats, as they will be far the easier pickings. You have I think adopted the classic Lib Dem obsession with the Tories at the point when the easier pickings are elsewhere even if some like Gidley weren't hammering the final nail into their political careers themselves, hence your strident tones. Excuse my cynicism but if the Tories were more "ideological" in your view you would be lambasting them equally hard for being "extreme", come to think of it that makes you a perfect Lib Dem MP Consul! I look forward your new Philippics in the HoC."

Essentially, if I can paraphrase: basically "don't get hung up on Tories, it will be easier to beat Labour".

I think to answer the point, I have to step back and reiterate why I support the Lib Dems and not the Conservative Party, still less the Labour Party.

I am a free market Liberal- it is axiomatic that freedom delivers better outcomes than a command economy. Neither do I believe in social class as the first component of society and am therefore anti Marxist.

This already makes me far less likely to support even a Fabianite form of Socialism. Although clause four has gone, the intellectual roots of Labour remain in "the Labour movement" - an explicitly class driven set of groups. The result is that Labour policies in office have always tended to amass power to the state and to believe that this is a superior way to organise society.

I am profound sceptical about the power of the state as a force for good and, although Labour have tended to enact more socially liberal measures in office, the fact is that I reject their core ideology.

The Conservatives can be said to have two core roots. The first is closer to the Liberal identity as far as economic organisation is concerned. However, the second is to be socially conservative- a belief in certain long standing social models for behaviour, and a rather prescriptive code of personal moral conduct, including sexual conduct. For me this is deeply unattractive. It implies a moral judgment and control by the state over personal conduct outside of what is limited by law.

So, although I can share some Conservative points of view on economic policy, I reject a fundamental part of their core values.

So the positive features of the Liberal Democrats?

The Liberal Democrats are pro-individual in economic, social and political spheres. The core value of the Liberal Democrats can be put in two sentences from John Stuart Mill:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."

Or, if you prefer PJ O Rourke:

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences"

It is through this prism that I examine political discourse in this country and the world. For example, I notice from my long standing (over 20 years) relationship with Estonia, that the key to good government is simplicity.

I am ideological about this- and so, by the way is my party: almost all our slogans start with Freedom.

So, from high principle, down to low politics.

The basic principle of Socialism is dead- long ignored by Labour, but with the complete abandonment only coming under Tony Blair. Labour was turned by him into a power machine, designed to bring power to the Blair-Brown axis. It was extremely successful in doing so. The problem for Labour has been what to do with power once gained. Some of the Lib Dem agenda- independence for the Bank of England, devolution of power away from Whitehall has been adopted. Apart from that, this government has created legislation at a truly manic rate. Their view of power demands repeated "action". The command roots of Labour have never been more obvious- inheriting the centralised system of government from the Conservatives, they have turned Whitehall into a machine to impose their will on the state through incontinent and ill thought out law making.

Unfortunately- it has failed. It is too complicated, too top heavy and too expensive.

What is the Conservative response?

To try to turn their own party into a contending machine. The lesson they learned from Blair was that being fuzzy about core principles and focus on power alone. This is the only route, they believe, that might enable the party to become a contender for government. The coterie of people around David Cameron have no other experience except the "Westminster Bubble"- and they are deeply impressed with the use of power under Labour.

But even Marx knew: "history repeats itself twice, first as tragedy, then as farce".

Even if Cameron achieves power- his sole definition of success- he will fail in government.

The intellectual sloppiness of Cameron is shocking, his whole approach is based on giving the electorate what they say they want. It is the exact opposite of the kind of politics of principle that great leaders must espouse. There is ultimately no future in Cameron's Conservatives, because there is a vacuum at the very heart of his ideas.

So, that a long way of answering Lepidus.

What about the implications for the future?

It may well be that Labour's implosion comes before that of the Conservatives, after all the intellectual bankruptcy of Socialism is more long standing, but the steady decline of political participation shows all is not well anywhere in politics.

Liberalism is a simple vision, but it is a powerful one. I believe that the radical changes that are coming in our society will demand wholesale reform of our political system. The death of political parties might be part of that, and for many people, not in the least unwelcome. In the face of wrench changes, where information technology could challenge the very concept of freedom as we know it, I see no coherent vision except in the idea of freedom above all things- that is Liberalism.

In is far as I may be said to be in politics at all, I am in it to articulate a vision.

This vision is: to increase Freedom, to ensure Justice and protect Individuality.

If Labour or the Conservatives could articulate such a vision for political renewal, then I would take them seriously- but they do not and can not- they fight yesterday's battles with yesterday's weapons.

Monday, December 18, 2006

The implications of his point that Russia is not a sensible place for major international investment are even more profound than they first appear.

Essentially Russia is not only refusing to allow international business to function, but where investment is being made in capital equipment and techniques that the Russians do not posses themselves, then they are trying to steal this proprietary technology.

Meanwhile the political picture grows more violent. Putin's "Nashi" goons continue to harass anyone they see fit- including the widespread use of violence and murder.

This is not a recipe for a powerful Russia. It is a recipe for an impoverished, weak and isolated Russia. Such is the catastophe that the KGB Colonel has led his country into.

The greedy, Mafia state will fail- and with unforeseeable consequences. Despite the flow of petro-dollars, the money leaves Russia as fast as it arrives. Away from the Potemkin villages of Moscow and St. Petersburg, conditions are little better than mediaeval. Corrupt and broken police forces vie with the local hoodlums to see who can extract more from the defeated and downtrodden populace. The corrupt and brutal army continues to bully thousands of conscripts- hundreds of whom die each year. Meanwhile generals make a niced cut selling arms, often to the Mafia or to the Chechen troops that they are supposed to be fighting.

The average Russian male can now expect to live less than 52 years. Most even of that short time is likely to be in a drunken haze of gutrot vodka.

By taking away peoples rights to control their own lives, you take away their reason to live. The criminal regime of the vile Putin- now apparently the richest man in his tin-pot kingdom- has destroyed more than it created, but mostly it has destroyed the most precious thing of all: hope.

I particularly recommend their latest discussion on the electoral maths of hung Parliaments.

However, there are fewer discussions about first principles- and yet for me, this is what is attractive about the idea of politics. The fundamental questions about what political power is and what the aims and practice of politics should be can be inspiring topics. Young people are passionate about political topics, from the environment to health- overtly political areas- but the business of party politics is viewed with suspicion and even disgust.

We might blame the media, and it is true that the 20 second soundbite is not a good way to judge complicated and difficult areas of policy. However, we should also blame ourselves as political animals for failing to engage fully with the political process. Time and again I see party political point scoring, even when the cause is lost and the points being made are irrelevant. It seems that our determination to support a given position leads to closed minds, and that particularly is what turns people off politics.

Open minded politics is about gaining positive outcomes- the art of the possible- but it is also about putting forward honest ideas and honest choices. In a futile search for passing popularity , most of our politicians sacrifice the truth.

It has not made for a very virtuous political system. If you believe with Aristotle that "All virtue is summed up in dealing justly". Then the compromises and half measures served up as political programmes are distinctly unappealing.

Once again I re-iterate my call for strategic thinking, open minded approaches and honest dealing. Many may consider it a fools errand.

I consider it essential that our political system rediscovers the need for virtue. Long term strategic principles and not short term tactical battles are what is inspiring about politics- and what is necessary.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

After the murder of Litvinenko, perhaps we should not be surprised that Shell have decided to relinquish control of the Sakhalin-2 energy fields. As BP's deal with TNK now increasingly comes into the spotlight, it is salutary to see the campaign of harassment against the British Ambassador waged by Putin's thugs.

The fact is that Russia has drifted into "capitalism in one country"- failing to acknowledge the necessity to trade in order to gain expertise. The only relationship they seem to understand is control and compulsion.

Monday, December 11, 2006

It has been a busy day, enduring the pelting rain in the Albanian capital.

My purpose was to meet with various public figures and discuss ideas about investment. The first port of call was The President of the Republic. As the traffic in the crowded streets of Tirana began to delay us, I got out of the inevitable Mercedes and strode out, in order to meet my appointment on time.

I was-just- on time, but President Moisiu has a military sense of timing. I was reminded that "punctuality is the politeness of Kings", as I arrived in his office about five minutes later than 11.00. Nevertheless it was interesting to see way that such a man engages with the new Albania. As a general in the Albanian army he was given the job of building the famous "bunkers"- three million pill boxes- that the Dictator decreed. Although Hoxha was a megalomaniac, even he must have been surprised by the effectiveness of the army in completing the task. President Moisiu is known as conciliator, and I reflected on the strange twists of fate in the life of this man. Behind the President's desk I noticed the insignia of the Order of St. Michael and St. George- the British diplomatic order, originally founded during British rule over neighbouring Corfu in 1817.

A later meeting was with the fiery Prime Minister, Sali Berisha. My Albanian hosts were astonished to discover that the PM devoted as much as 45 minutes to a one-on-one meeting. Yet we had much to discuss. I was prepared to find a professional controversialist. In fact I found a man still engaged with ideas, and angry that the legacy of the dictatorship was slowing him down. As he outlined Albanian plans for a flat tax and a whole raft of reforms, I must admit I grew more and more impressed. Despite his pugnacious form of expression, I sensed a determined leader- albeit one challenged from every side.

Albania is still a backward and neglected country- and one with low levels of social capital and major corruption problems. Despite all of this, it has been transformed from the ghost town of my first acquaintance into a country that has achieved many things, but hopes for so much more.

As the rain hits the windows of my hotel bedroom, I gaze across the city. The low levels of water in the rivers is causing problems in the power system, which is almost entirely hydro powered. Lights across the city flicker, and sometimes grow dark. Yet as the rain comes down I reflect that the dams must be filling up. Though the politics remain poisonous and personal, though power generation is now at crisis levels, yet the Albanians remain indomitable in the face of these problems.

As the Conservatives and their blinkered friends in "Migration Watch" continue to pedal their warped ideas about immigration, it was interesting to get some information about British emigration overseas. In recent years we have heard a lot from the Tories about refusing to let in "non-European immigration" to the UK. Fascinating to notice that apart from Spain, most Brits chose to leave the UK and go to... Non European destinations.

A good thing that the New Zealanders are not arguing "send them back" then.

The fact is that emigration/immigration are subjects that are far to complicated to be debated using the language of the Daily Mail.

So, by all means let us discuss the question of migration, only please, without the misrepresentations and distortions of "Migration Watch" and the Tory party.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

I am "enjoying" the dubious pleasures of Stansted Airport as I wait for my flight to the Albanian capital.

I am due to meet with senior figures in the government of Albania to discuss the results of a meeting that I hosted between Estonian political figures and the Albanian PMs advisor in London. I will also be discussing aspects of a potential involvement between the firm that I advise and the Albanian financial system- such as it is.

However already, the extra immigration checks and the rather piratical figure of the Albanian Airlines rep are setting the usual tone: that Albania is still too poor and chaotic to be either trusted or liked by the European powers.

Nevertheless, the fact that those who sent me are interested enough to do so, and that those who have issued the invitation understand why, is encouraging.

Albania is still in the middle of a long and hard journey, but recent progress has been swift- I sense similar things beginning to happen in Albania as have already taken place in the majority of the countries of the region. On the other hand, perhaps a Banker in Tirana is the definition of optimism.

Friday, December 08, 2006

A few days ago Cicero met with one of the better known figures in the Libertarian Alliance, Brian Mickelthwait. Brian writes for various blogs that I enjoy reading- including Samizdata.

Ahead of our meeting Brain expressed "scepticism" about the Libertarian credentials of the Liberal Democrats: "My charge was that when you meet a Liberal Democrat you never know what he will believe. The one who talks to you is likely to say what you want to hear. But the others will simultaneously be telling other people with quite different views what they want to hear. So don't vote for these lying creeps."

Political parties- all of them- are coalitions of people who quite often disagree with each other. Apparently we are not supposed to "air our dirty linen in public", but actually one of the reasons that the Liberal Democrats appealed to me was that they were prepared to talk about issues and policies amongst themselves in public. The eclipse of the Liberal Party as a force in government led to the party becoming a ginger group for pioneering ideas- ideas that were subsequently put into place by other parties. Liberalism was about ideas more than power.

However, over the past fifteen years something important has happened in British politics. Social changes have undermined thecoherentt "class" basis for the Conservatives and Labour. As a result the ideological underpinning of first Labour and now the Conservatives' agenda has weakened drastically. The consequences have been the creation of PR driven, increasingly unideological political agendas- so-called "triangulation". However, the Liberal Democrats have actually gone in the other direction. More and more the debates inside the party have begun to relate to first principles of Liberal ideology.

The emergence of a group of successful over achievers in the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party- David Laws, Edward Davey, Nick Clegg, Susan Kramer and so on has brought the debate to the highest level. The publication of "The Orange Book" was a key step in framing the debate in much more explicitly economically Liberal terms.

At the time, the leadership of Charles Kennedy was reluctant to engage with the debate- and many activists in the party found it difficult to accept the policy conclusions that were drawn in the book. However, although Ming Campbell has continued to call himself a politician of the centre-left"- a position I have explicitly rejecte. Nonetheless, the new leadership has actively engaged with the economic Liberal positions. Meanwhile the members have actually got round to reading the book. New policies- especially on deregulation-explicitly come from the freedom agenda, while the debate on taxation has shifted from a tax and spend perspective to the ideology of "setting limits to the role of the state"- which for me is the hallmark of Liberalism. From our commitment to civil rights is emerging a far more Liberal approach across the board-especially in taxation and the wider issues of the economy.

To a degree the Liberals and Liberal Democrats never wholly lost the free market agenda- Malcolm Bruce was talking about similar issues when he was industry and treasury spokesman 20 years ago- but there is no doubt that there was and remains a significant constituency for a more Social Democrat "social justice agenda" inside the party. However to me this is no more shocking than seeing Social Conservatives and Libertarians inside the Conservative Party. The reality is that any political party is a coalition.

The publication of a follow up to The Orange Book: Britain after Blair continues to advance the debate inside our party in the direction of an explicitly freedom driven agenda. Although the debate continues, the fact is that issues like land tax, flat tax, deregulation and so on are being taken seriously, even by those who do not necessarily support them.

So the answer to Brain Micklethwait is no, we are not yet wholly Libertarian- but no party is, or is likely to be. However there is an increasing number of Liberal Democrats who are absolutely Economic and Social Liberals. I believe that the tradition of J.S. Mill in our party makes us far more open to the ideas of Hayek than any other political party. I also believe that as the Labour and Conservatives descend into Butskillite mush, the Liberal Democrats will develop a firmer ideological edge over our rivals, and that as a party we will reap the rewards.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Having finally analyzed the Chancellors pre-budget report, it is hard to know whether to laugh or cry. As Philip Webster and Gary Duncan write in The Times today, Gordon Brown has simply repeated his habit of imposing extra taxes and increasing public borrowing. At a time of severe labour shortages in the construction sector, the timing of his announcement of further expenditure to refurbish schools could hardly be worse.

Meanwhile his cocktail of "green taxes" looks weak and ineffective. Whereas, the Liberal Democrats would increase taxes on pollution and cut taxes elsewhere, the Labour government just increases taxes. The British economy is already groaning under the weight of Gordon Brown's attempts at micro management. Meanwhile Cameron's promise to "share the proceeds of growth"- increasing expenditure while making undefined pledges on lower taxes just looks like what it is: pure waffle.

The fact is that a limit must be set on the size of the state- and since Gordon Brown began ignoring his own "golden rule", neither Conservatives nor Labour are prepared to accept this. The proportion of the national income under state control is too high and must fall. The Liberal Democrats have pointed out several ways about how to do this- scrapping a large part of regulation, and closing large parts of Whitehall, including the abolition of the Department of Trade and Industry (or Timidity and Inactivity, as Private Eyehas it).

Brown and Osbourne are two cats up the same tree- both advocate increasing government expenditure practically without limit. Both fail to understand the need to simplify and reduce the role of the state. Both are in a dead end.

The time has come to challenge the Blair-Brown legacy: over regulated, over taxed, and over bearing.

It is such a pity that David Cameron would say almost anything to get elected, anything that is, except the right thing.

So the task must fall to Ming Campbell and Vince Cable- The tax-and-spend consensus is choking the British economy- it must be challenged and harried at every turn!

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Much is being made of the development of a small lead for the SNP in the opinion polls ahead of next years election to Holyrood. In addition there is said to be small majorities in favour of independence on both sides of the border. The way some tell it, the United Kingdom is headed for inevitable dissolution.

So, it is a relief to see a much more balanced analysis from Magnus Linklater in The Times.

The key point is that while the idea of independence might be emotionally attractive, the practical realities would be deeply unpopular and as a result, even were the SNP to be able to form a government at Holyrood next year, they would be highly unlikely to win a referendum on independence. The support for the SNP is support for an opposition- and as the election draws nearer, even that lead in the polls may prove illusory.

To a certain extent the increase in the support for the SNP reflects the final despair of the Scottish Conservatives. The classically liberal elements of the Scottish Conservatives have seen the success of the liberal policies in the Baltic countries and now believe that Scotland could aspire to the same Über-Liberal nirvana- as an independent state. Unfortunately the economic policies of the SNP are based on the Social Democrat centre of gravity of Scottish politics. The radical nature of Liberal policies is not likely to be loved by the Socialist wing of the party, so ex-Tory entryism is unlikely to capture the heart of the SNP- despite their dreams.

The SNP stands for only one thing: independence; but against lots of things,including many things that provide Scotland with jobs. Even if they could gain power, they are likely to prove factional and unstable- defections and disagreements are the norm for the SNP. The fact is that separatist politics has a long way to go before it can mature enough to create stable economic or even constitutional policies for Scotland- it still can not decide whether Scotland would be a Republic or not. In short, it seems unlikely that the SNP alone could carry Scotland to independence without a significant change in the current conditions.

Of course one of these changes might be a backlash in England. There are two sources for discontent south of the Tweed- one is the question of local government and the other is a national question.

The grumbling about the perceived subsidy of Scotland has become a roar since the Holyrood Parliament was established. Of course the fact is that any constitutional settlement should take into account the whole of the UK, and the advent of assemblies or Parliaments for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland has left a glaring omission: England.

Originally the idea was that English regional assemblies would fill the gap. However the primary identification for most English people remains with the county. Sports,especially cricket, remain organised by counties. "Eastern Region" masks intense rivalries between Norfolk and Suffolk; "South West Region", stretching from Gloucestershire to Cornwall, can barely be said to have a common identity at all. If local government is to have local roots, then there is a case for much stronger county governments, which can cooperate amongst themselves on an ad hoc basis where appropriate, rather than the devolution of Whitehall to regional bureaucratic hubs. Then a weaker "English Assembly" could sit as a committee of the House of Commons.

I put forward the idea, since it strikes me that the one size fits all approach to local government is clearly not appropriate. Most English counties have populations around a half a million- and several are over a million- a level that is greater than several individual member states of the European Union. Although the British civil service has split itself, to some degree, in order to work under unelected regional groupings, the fact is that the regions remain unpopular and regional assemblies have already been rejected in referenda.

The national question is bound up in sense of English grievance about the whole idea of the UK. Personally I find Conservative complaints about "the whinging Jocks" pretty irritating. It reflects the lack of confidence that repeated defeat is instilling into many Conservative minds. "Since we win a plurality of votes in England, should we not control England, and let Scotland separate?". I do not understand such weak minded self indulgence. The United Kingdom stands for many positive virtues- not least the idea that nations can work together harmoniously. Our long history together has seen lows- the slave trade, some aspects of colonialisation- but also enormous success- the rise of industry, liberal politics and a culture of liberty and tolerance. Our shared institutions include everything from the RNLI to the BBC, and this is social capital that takes years to build, but which can be destroyed all too easily.

Real leadership involves speaking up for those shared values- leaders of all political groups should remind the British people constantly of the value of our shared civic identity. Labour and the Liberal Democrats, supporters of devolution, have been far more forthright in supporting the UK than the Conservatives, who opposed it. This reflects a political calculation that is profoundly dangerous. The vacuum that the weakness of the Scottish Conservatives is creating is a window of opportunity for separatism- but with vision and leadership the separatist sirens can be beaten- on both sides of the border.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Last week the Adam Smith Institute linked to a piece I did advocating greater understanding and use of markets in dealing with our housing crisis. Today I see The Guardian has linked to my piece pointing out the heroically overspun Blairite approach to hospital closures.

I suppose what they have in common is hostility to Mr. Blair.

Mind you, good to see that Liberalism can be attractive to people across the British political spectrum...

Last night Cicero attended a talk given by Steve Forbes, the American publisher and former presidential candidate at the London Junto- a discussion group for financiers, loosely modeled upon Ben Franklin's original Junto.

Ben Franklin famously said "Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.". So it was particularly appropriate that the leading American advocate of flat tax should be speaking to the group.

Cicero has been involved with the Baltic countries since he first discovered the Estonian Legation in London in 1979 and Estonia has been in the vanguard of the flat tax movement in Europe. Following Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Serbia and Montenegro have all adopted modified flat tax regimes, with new countries joining the list quite regularly.

So far, no Western European state has adopted flat taxes.

A major benefit of a flat tax is that since there are no deductibles, it becomes extremely simple to calculate- thus the expensive tax bureaucracy and the large number of accountants required to help taxpayers fill in the complicated forms are no longer needed. It is therefore a huge saving in collection costs. In Estonia the tax form is a single sheet of A4 that can even be completed online, if you wish.

Perhaps a part of the reason that Western Europe has not adopted the flat system, is that there are several misconceptions about what the results of a flat tax actually are. A single tax rate is seen as being unfair to the poor- since, as a proportion the rich pay the same rate as the less well off. Yet, if the tax free threshold is set high enough even an average tax payer can pay very low levels of income tax- and the system is therefore still progressive.

Indeed, the high rates of taxation under the "progressive" regime, together with a large number of "middle class" tax credits has meant that many of the poorest pay a far higher proportion of income in tax than the middle class, while the rich actually now pay least of all. The wealthy establish a network of off shore structures in order to shelter their assets or income from income or capital gain tax, and since the tax rates can be 40% or 50%, it is economic to spend money to create these complicated and expensive structures.

The policy of Gordon Brown- creating very large tax credit systems- has succeeded to some degree in creating a client relationship for many citizens with the state. The state has increased its power over the citizen by offering tax credit payments. The problem is that the increasing costs of administering these gigantic programmes is creating a fiscal drag- the costs are slowing down our economy.

Steve Forbes spoke very much about American conditions- yet, although the British tax code is not yet as complicated as the US, it is certainly heading in that direction. If we are to avoid the cul-de-sac of an almighty fiscal bureaucracy, we must act quickly to simplify taxation.

Fair, Simple, and cheap to collect should be our watch words- it is time for the British Liberal Democrats to speak up for a tax system that actually delivers these things. The current taxation system does none of these things- Brown's policy (and Cameron's acceptance of it) must be challenged.

As the flat tax tide rises across Europe, it is time for the United Kingdom Liberal Democrats to debate these issues honestly and openly.

Unless Mr. Putin actually wants a major diplomatic crisis- to include the arrest and or expulsion of the very large number of Russian spies in the United Kingdom- then I would suggest that he talks to his chief prosecutor- now.

The patience of the United Kingdom in the face of murder and nuclear contamination coming from Russia is not unlimited. It would be wise not to add insult to injury.

Ah! In December a young Prime Minister's fancy turns lightly to thoughts of spin.

The gigantic deficits in the British health care system are reinforcing a need to rationalise services on fewer sites. The problem is that closing hospital services is always deeply unpopular in the the communities they serve. When the services under threat are Accident and Emergency- then campaigns are tinged with the fear that A&E services might be too far away and that lives may be lost. Whether road accidents or heart attacks- people get nervous about closures.

So Mr. Blair is making a pre-emptive strike - arguing that those who oppose the closures are putting lives at risk. I have no idea whether Mr. Blair believes this, or whether he merely finds it expedient to believe this- in any event the evidence is somewhat finely balanced. However the concentration of sick people in one place strikes me as potentially quite dangerous.

Today we have MRSA- what happens tomorrow if H5N1 becomes transmissible between humans? Large hospitals may then become useless or even dangerous white elephants- spreading disease faster than it can be cured.

I assume that this is what Mr. Blair means when he talks about joined-up government?

It is almost as though the Ministers forgot that the internet exists- it is totally unnecessary to centralise patient information to this absurd degree. While there might be concerns over the security of the links, these apply just as much to a centralised system - and curing the problem would not take Â£31 billion.

A system that re-invents the wheel to solve a problem that does not really exist- that is typical of Whitehall.

Meanwhile Microsoft has also managed to lay an egg, in the shape of its new Vista operating system- a system that has taken an enormous amount of centralised brain power to develop. Yet no one else will ever do the same. Again, the answer is the internet- linking simple units together creates far more complexity, far more quickly that any centralised system could ever originate. Thus the development of new software is coming from Open source systems, like Linux and proprietary operating systems are already losing ground in the face of this phenomenon

The same applies to public administration- the great bureaucracies, whether Microsoft or the NHS (or even political parties that manage to borrow tens of millions on low security) will not be able to compete with smaller, simpler, cheaper networks.

And, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Cicero will be listening to Steve Forbes speaking this evening, and will report back in the morning.

Whatever the plots and machinations behind this sinister murder, the fact is that Russian agents were complict in the crime. The Russian government should understand that in previous times, this would have been considered and act of war against the Queen's peace. Instead of criticism, the British government has a right to demand full co-operation from the Russian government.

If we don't get it, then that would be tantamount to an admission of guilt.

Russia doesn't do apologies- while Blair busies himself apologizing for the slave trade of three centuries ago, there are Russians alive now who took part in one of the greatest single acts of mass murder in history: the Great Soviet Terror.

We would do well not to forget the psychological damage that has been inflicted on Russia by the Terror, we would, however, be even more foolish to accept uncivilized behaviour as the norm from the Kremlin.

"Never apologise, never explain" was Stalins's policy- we must not accept it from Putin.

Except it is not the centre ground- supporting ideas such as "relative poverty" and Polly Toynbee's rants is not triangulation, it is capitulation.

This country does not need more of the same- it needs a radical deregulation and much clearer limits to the power of the state.

The Conservatives are offering nothing new that can advance this agenda. Either they are serious about their new stand, in which case they are wrong, or they do not believe a word, in which case they are untrustworthy.

Friday, December 01, 2006

Since we have established that the poison used to kill Alexander Litvinenko was Polonium -210, it has been clear that there was a direct connection with the Russian security services.

The Polonium has also created its own trail- leaving traces in the plane that it came to Britain on, and cross contamination in several other planes.

The investigation has already established that Alexander Litvinenko was murdered, that the poison came from a specific reactor in Russia and that the poison was brought to London on October 25th on a BA flight -around the time of the Arsenal-CSKA Moscow football match. Access to the poison is limited to people with specific security clearances in the Russian security services.

As the question of how, and even who killed Mr. Litvinenko has become clearer, the critical question still remains: Why was Mr. Litvinenko killed?

In attempting to answer this question, we keep taking more steps closer to the person and personality of President Vladimir Putin himself.

The murder, despite initial connections, does not seem to be as a result of any information concerning the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. It seems that at the time of his death, Alexander Litvinenko was only tangentially looking at that case. The allegations that he had previously made suggesting that the supposedly Chechen bomb attacks in Russia that provided the pretext to restart the Chechen war were in fact made by Russian security services themselves have been public for some time.

The only new allegation that Litvinenko was making, was that Putin was guilty of molesting children. Even were this true it would be highly unlikely to be believed, and certainly posed no threat to Mr. Putin, even if he found the allegations distasteful and annoying or worse.

The current story in the press is that dissident or rogue security agents may have been responsible, attempting to pressurize or discredit the Putin regime. Of course it may be that the pressure is personal: the message is to Mr. Putin himself, that he would not be safe in the West, were he to choose to come here after his term ends.

It would be fair to say that the number of people who wish to see the death of Vladimir Putin is now quite a long one already.

The conclusion is that the Russian Security Services did this, the only question is whether it was for Vladimir Putin or against him. Although few murders have been solved inside the Russian Federation, the British enquiry may well find enough evidence to request the extradition of specific suspects- then we may find some very interesting answers to all of this speculation.

Alexander Litvinenko became a British citizen only on November 1st 2006. He may have been murdered precisely because of this. It would be fitting if his murder was solved because he had become a British citizen, and the British authorities lived up to their responsibilities to their citizens, in a way that the Russian Federation has so dismally failed to do for its own citizens in recent years.